Search for: "T. K."
Results 401 - 420
of 20,585
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2008, 11:00 am
But it wasn't easy. [read post]
2 Feb 2013, 11:01 am
T 495/10 [2.1.2]). [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
Since no appeal procedure is pending, the Board can only remit the case to the department of first instance (following decisions T 21/02 and T 242/05). [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 11:09 pm
t??? [read post]
8 Nov 2008, 3:11 pm
Now that's fair, isn't it? [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 10:45 am
K Is For Keogh Plans. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 3:20 pm
I won't even mention "the stink. [read post]
19 May 2013, 5:01 pm
T 19/87 [5]; T 668/89 [3]; T 417/00 [2.3] T 1829/10 [2.4]). [read post]
4 Nov 2020, 9:19 am
The post 401(k) Contribution Limits Stay the Same in 2021 appeared first on HRWatchdog by HRWatchdog. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 7:50 pm
“Reproductive rights group asks Supreme Court to review Baltimore law requiring clinics to say they don’t offer abortions”: Andrea K. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 4:53 pm
Fortunately, it is anticipated that the clones won't be dangerous to anyone except perhaps those folks attempting to brew the perfect cup of coffee. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
According to D68, these proceedings have been pending until 25 October 2013, ie until after the oral proceedings before the present board and until after the decision announced therein.An action taken against the property of an opponent, here une procédure de Liquidation Judiciare [re-sic] Normale under French law against DF3 SAS, does not take away the opponent’s party status (T 696/02 [7.2]) and does not entail an interruption of the proceedings, R 142 covering applicants or… [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 1:45 pm
I don't think anyone has really noticed. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 2:00 am
Gostin (Georgetown University), Gigi K. [read post]
9 May 2013, 5:01 pm
See in this respect T 774/05 [5].[1.4.4] The above being as it is, the Board does not see the need to provide for simultaneous interpretation from German to English for the accompanying person. [read post]
17 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
The reference in paragraph [0010] of the application to the chemical and physical stability of crystalline solids was very general and belonged merely to the background of the invention and thus could not form a basis for formulating the problem.[2.3.2] According to the well established case law of the Boards of Appeal, the technical problem has to be determined on the basis of objectively established facts, since for the determination of the objective technical problem, only the effect actually… [read post]
9 May 2013, 5:01 pm
See in this respect T 774/05 [5].[1.4.4] The above being as it is, the Board does not see the need to provide for simultaneous interpretation from German to English for the accompanying person. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
A consequence thereof is that the claims must be clear in themselves when read by the person skilled in the art, without any reference to the content of the description (see T 2/80 [2]; T 1129/97 [2.1.2]; T 2006/09 [4]). [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The present claim is comparable to the device claims of the auxiliary request in decision T 775/97 [3.1] which were found not to fall under the exclusion clause of A 52(4) EPC 1973.The reasoning of T 82/93 [1.5-5] is not applicable to the present situation either. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 11:34 am
More than one person refused to be interviewed and I can't say I blame them. [read post]
